User talk:64.139.4.129

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stop posting personal attacks, or you will be blocked from editing. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Waya sahoni 06:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr Merkey, Please stop editing user pages as a retaliatory tactic against people who out you. You are the one circumventing a ban at Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Defacing User Pages

Please don't deface my user page again. Thanks. Waya sahoni 08:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, you need to come to the realization that your presence on Wikipedia has come to and end for a while. You are outed with incontrovertible evidence. You are already banned. You are toast. Go mine some rhodium and leave the internet to the mundanes for a while.

Please dont deface my user page again. This is the second time I have been required to ask you this. Thanks. Waya sahoni 18:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, Your IP addresses are clearly seen in the history of the Jeff Merkey article. User:Gadugi was banned. You are banned. Circumventing a ban and having someone call you on it is not vandalism, but rather good citizenship.

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please dont touch my user page. This is the third time you have done so. Thanks. Waya sahoni 19:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, your user page is the place to put allegations of sockpuppetry. Like it or not, this does not constitute vandalism. The evidence that you ARE Jeff Merkey is incontrovertible.

[edit] Jeff Merkey's sockpuppets

The following users and IP addresses are aomng Jeff's attempts to circumvent his permanent ban and rewrite his embarrassing history.

67.177.35.25 (talk • contribs)
Address used by 'Merkey's wife' - nslookup shows 'c-67-177-35-25.hsd1.ut.comcast.net'
67.137.28.187 (talk • contribs)
Address used by Merkey (see talk page) - tracert shows that the last named node is 'gw0-cust-OCWIRELESS-NET.slkc.eli.net' (a Salt Lake City wireless account). This node is not currently active.
This "node" is indeed active. It continues to be part of a very small IP address block that formerly hosted some of Merkey's domain names (vger.utah-nac.org, merkeylaw.com) but has been purged of Merkey's domain names and now hosts various *.soleranetworks.com hosts.
This IP address is one that Merkey continues to use in posting to the LKML (Linux Kernel Mail List). Here is a header fragement from a Merkey post as recent as Fri, 24 Feb 2006 16:48:10 -0700:
Received: from wolfmountaingroup.com (solera_gw.soleranetworks.com [67.137.28.187]) by master.soleranetworks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E43E2B096B; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:59:01 -0700 (MST)
From "Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com>
Ref: http://lkml.org/lkml/headers/2006/2/24/270
Note that it is frequently possible to determine Merkey's current IP address by doing a host merkeylaw.com (currently: merkeylaw.com has address 67.177.35.222), host wolfmountaingroup.org (currently: wolfmountaingroup.org has address 67.177.35.222), or host wolfmountaingroup.com (currently: wolfmountaingroup.com has address 67.177.35.222) as Merkey is now hosting these domain names at his home.
67.137.28.189 (talk • contribs)
nslookup shows demo.soleranetworks.com. Solera Networks is Jeff Merkeys's company. User is banned for for threats against another user.
Solera Networks is *not* Merkey's company. He probably still *works* for Solera Networks, or at least he still can still originate posts to the LKML from IP address/host names that belong to Solera Networks.
67.177.35.211 (talk • contribs)
nslookup shows 'c-67-177-35-211.hsd1.ut.comcast.net'. Self admitted Merkey account. See User talk.
67.177.35.222 (talk • contribs)
nslookup shows 'c-67-177-35-222.hsd1.ut.comcast.net'. User blocked for persistent vandalism to the Jeff Merkey article.
67.177.11.129 (talk • contribs)
nslookup shows 'c-67-177-11.129.hsd1.ut.comcast.net'. User warned about vandalism. User Waya sahoni answers in first person. Added self-referential biographical content to Waya sahoni's user page.
67.166.115.135 (talk • contribs)
nslookup shows 'c-67-177-115.135.hsd1.ut.comcast.net'. User adds content to Waya sahoni page that is is then MOVED by Waya sahoni to another position on his page. Obvious Merkey sockpuppet.
Waya sahoni (talk • contribs)
Uses both 67.166.115.135 and 67.177.11.129 IP addresses to modify this user's home page.

[edit] The truth hurts

I've got you completely pegged Jeff. Your inability to remember to login to your wikipedia account, combined with previously used IP addresses nails you to the wall sockpuppeteer.

Another sad attempt to violate my homepage. Are you aware of the three reverts rule Jeff?

[edit] Re: User Vigilant

Hi Nick, I stall haven't received any officially valid reason for Vigilant's indef block. Can you pelase look into removing the block? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.4.129 (talk • contribs)

Hello there: Vigilant (talk · contribs) was blocked by administrator Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) for editing on Wikipedia with the sole purpose of goading Jeff Merkey, who has since been indefinitely banned by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing. In the interests of maintaining a stable editing environment, it is counter-productive to permit users to continue to carry out tit-for-tat harassment in this manner, especially where it involves one or more users who have caused significant amount of trouble to Wikipedia in the past. This is in line with the rulings made by the Arbcom in, for example, the Bogdanov Affair case (see [1]) and at present I do not see any reason to unblock this account. Should Vigilant wish to resume editing Wikipedia without any activities related to Merkey, or the issues surrounding the dispute, I would suggest that he create a new account for the purpose. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 15:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment of Jeff

please stop. --Duk 17:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you are an admin, I'd like to ask you a direct question, "What have I done that is considered harassment?"
I have asked Jeff to source his allegations against Eric Schimdt, which is completely reasonable.
So did other editors, but you're following him around and stirring up trouble.--Duk 21:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Strike that, I see people have already explained this to you with mind numbing patience. Goodby. --Duk 21:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Duk, I was never banned from the community. I had one account indef blocked. There is a difference that an admin should know. Please remove the block as it does not follow rules for blocking users and I certainly deserve an explanation that details what I've done wrong in this latest go around.64.139.4.129 00:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you know what a community ban is? It is when an admin blocks you indefinitely and nobody is willing to unblock you. --Duk 02:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


Community ban

There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she has been indefinitely blocked by an administrator—and no one is willing to unblock them. Users blocked under these circumstances are considered to have been "banned by the Wikipedia community."

Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is a consensus of community support for the block, and may note the block on a relevant noticeboard. The user should be listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users (under "Community"). Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus. The community may impose either topic bans or general editing bans.

The processes surrounding community bans are presently highly controversial.


Take a look at that section and tell me how it applies Duk. Let's go over some phrases in there, shall we:

  • where a user has exhausted the community's patience - this might require more than a few edits, wouldn't you think?
  • Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is a consensus of community support for the block - who else have you polled in the admin community?
  • Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus - Again, please provide a list of admins who support such a ban. The requirement of evidence is clearly on your side.
  • The processes surrounding community bans are presently highly controversial - glad we're in clear water here.

And let's look at the link you keep spamming in place of actually providing evidence of stalking or harassment:

  • Vigilant (talk • contribs) was blocked by administrator Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs) - a now discredited and desysoped editor, things that make you go hmmm. Reading the controversy surrounding Tony, I come away with the feeling that his judgment might not have been considered universally sound.
  • it is counter-productive to permit users to continue to carry out tit-for-tat harassment in this manner, - fair enough, check my edits and provide some evidence that I have done this. Even a broad view of the number of edits that Merkey has made versus the number I hav emade makes this a futile argument.
  • Should Vigilant wish to resume editing Wikipedia without any activities related to Merkey, or the issues surrounding the dispute, I would suggest that he create a new account for the purpose - Not banned, one account disabled with an invitation from another admin to rejoin wikipedia.

Interesting. Have you viewed the edit log on the Eric Schmidt article?

In view of your reliance on the Nicholas Turnbull edit, perhaps a review of your indef block on my IP is in order, given the lack of evidence produced on your part to support it.

Process and all that.



The account named 'Vigilant' is indef blocked. Read Nicholas Turnbull's comments. Is this the rule of law that wikipedia is famous for? Can you identify which rules I have broken and provide the edits? If not, then is wikipedia any better than a Junior High School popularity contest?
Perhaps I misunderstood, is asking for clarification a bannable offense? Seems a bit harsh...
I'm not sure how many times this needs to be explained to you, but please read this link, here carefully. If you can't comprehend it, then you shouldn't be editing wikipedia. However, I'm sure you can and are just being a tendentious jerk. --Duk 11:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow. "shouldn't be editing wikipedia", "tendentious jerk", NPA anyone? AGF anyone. How on earth are you an admin? Linking to the same section on my talk page from a long while ago doesn't seem relevant to a request for exact violations on this pass. How on earth does this follow wikipedia process? Don't you feel an obligation to at least pretend to point out the rules violated? If not, you probably shouldn't be adminning wikipedia....
Dear Sir, I most certainly did tell you what rules you violated. As for WP:AGF, please go read it and you'll find I haven't violated it in any way. As for personal attacks, "tendentious jerk" is a perfect description of you and in no way a personal attack. I even went and looked up the word "tendentious" to double check. If I ever send you a personal attack, you'll know it! Normally I don't spend any time with trolls, but in your case I have an especially good reason (you'll have to figure out what that is for yourself). --Duk 15:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure which dictionary you've used, but calling someone a jerk and stating that they shouldn't edit wikipedia are the VERY DEFINITION of a personal attack. The fact that you don't think this is the case is only more amusing.

[edit] Vigilant, why you are stalking Jeff

Vigilant, why you are stalking Jeff? --Duk 15:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

When did you stop beating your wife? I am not 'stalking' Jeff. I would appreciate any evidence that you have to support this conclusion.
Well, this page for a start. You clearly have an unnatural and malignant fascination with Jeff that's demonstrated with each post. So I'll ask again, why are you stalking Jeff? It's a simple question. Can you please answer it? --Duk 15:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not stalking Jeff. Please go through my edits versus Jeff's edits and tell me what constitutes stalking. Nice NPA again. Perhaps bringing in a more senior editor to review your edits on my talk page might be more appropriate. You seem to have difficulty with WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Just saying.

[edit] Concerned

Hi User:64.139.4.129, I just went through your anonymous edits as you asked. A year and a half of nothing but stalking Jeff. No contributed content at all. I'm a little concerned about you and your unhealthy obsession. Have you considered seeking psychiatric help. I say this as a concerned editor, not as an admin. --Duk 13:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)